top
East Bay
East Bay
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Section 8 voucher opt out court decision favors renters

by Lynda Carson (tenantsrule [at] yahoo.com)
Section 8 renters in the East Bay and other jurisdictions protected by local just cause ordinances in California, have won a huge victory in recent days against landlords that try to opt out of the low-income Section 8 voucher program, that is meant to assist the poor, elderly and disabled in their housing needs!

Section 8 voucher opt out court decision favors renters

By Lynda Carson -- April 16, 2012

Oakland -- The word has spread quickly during the past few days throughout the East Bay Tenant's Bar Association, the San Francisco Tenant's Bar Association, the Eviction Defense Center in Oakland, Legal Aid of Alameda County, and the East Bay Community Law Center in Berkeley, that the higher courts of California recognize that Section 8 renters are protected by local just cause ordinances, when landlords try to opt out of the Section 8 voucher program.

On April 12, 2012, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County ruled that Section 8 renters in the City of Los Angeles are protected by just cause eviction protections when landlords attempt to opt out of the Section 8 voucher program (Housing Choice Voucher Program). Landlords may not opt out of the Section 8 voucher program in eviction control jurisdictions, for the wrong reasons.

This ruling and rationale to protect Section 8 renters, should affect other cities such as Oakland, Berkeley, San Francisco, and other jurisdictions in California with just cause for eviction protections, and should hold that landlords are not allowed to make an end run around such eviction protections, in an effort to opt out of the Section 8 voucher program.

According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), "The housing choice voucher program is the federal government's major program for assisting very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. A housing subsidy is paid to the landlord directly by the Public Housing Authority (PHA) on behalf of the participating family. The family then pays the difference between the actual rent charged by the landlord and the amount subsidized by the program."
For years, low-income Section 8 renters and their families have been threatened by landlords claiming that they will opt out of the Section 8 voucher program if they cannot obtain major rent increases from a local housing authority at times, or on an annual basis.

Some landlords have even gone to such extremes as to demand that Section 8 renters must make illegal cash payments under the table on a monthly basis to the landlord, in addition to what their Section 8 contracts require them to pay. The Section 8 tenants are threatened with with eviction if they fail to make the extra under the table cash payments to the landlords.

Section 8 renters are not allowed to make payments to the landlord that go beyond the limits of what the Section 8 renters are allowed to pay, according to their monthly rent contract (HAP contract).

In the recent case of Tobias Crisales v. Monica Estrada, the landlord received a total of $950 per month in rent every month from the local housing authority and the Section 8 tenant, Monica Estrada.

The tenant did everything right. She did not violate her contract, and she payed her portion of the rent that was required of her under the terms of the Section 8 contract, every month.

However, that was not good enough for the landlord, and the landlord wanted more money for rent than what the local housing authority was willing to pay, and the landlord decided to opt out of the Section 8 program.

On October 3, 2010, the landlord served the Section 8 tenant, Monica Estrada, a 90-day notice terminating the lease, namely for business and economic reasons. Additionally, the landlord claimed that he had difficulty in dealing with Section 8 requirements, paperwork, inspections, and an attempt to obtain a rent increase. The landlord stated, "I have made a business decision that I do not want to continue my relationship with the government as a party in my rental contracts."

Later on February 3, 2011, the landlord served the Section 8 tenant a three-day notice to pay rent of $950 or quit. The landlord demanded at that point, that the tenant must pay the portion of rent that the housing authority usually made on a monthly basis, in addition to her own normal monthly payments.

When the Section 8 tenant tried to pay her normal portion of rent as was required of her under the terms of the Section 8 contract, the landlord refused to accept the rent payment.

On February 9, 2011, the landlord then tried to evict the Section 8 tenant known as Monica Estrada and filed an unlawful detainer action against her, but that was not a "good cause" reason to evict her, according to the rules of the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (LARSO), and Section 8 tenant Estrada fought back against the eviction under those grounds, and the court ruled that she was to be allowed to remain in her housing.

The landlord (Tobias Crisales) appealed the court decision that allowed Section 8 tenant, Monica Estrada, to remain in her housing as a Section 8 tenant, and lost the appeal in the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, on April 14, 2012.

The court ruled that; "The general ground of a business or economic reason as stated in the plaintiff's 90-day notice to defendant does not fall within any of the enumerated categories for eviction under LARSO. Accordingly, the plaintiff's notice failed to terminate the Section 8 tenancy, and therefore the plaintiff's subsequent three-day notice was improper, and the plaintiff was not entitled to possession of the premises.

This is a huge victory for low-income Section 8 families that have been threatened and faced eviction for economic reasons by landlords trying to evict them for reasons that are not valid, just, or fair, in eviction control jurisdictions.

Lynda Carson may be reached at; tenantsrule [at] yahoo.com

Add Your Comments
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$110.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network